@Gargamel,
Gargoyle, remember when you kept saying **** like, "Obama is not a Socialist"?
You really missed that one.
@H2O MAN,
And we've yet to get your definition of "socialism." You expect us to just trust that the time you don't spend softening water is spent at the library, poring over Marx.
I'm sure you're a big reader.
what's so bad about being social?
I have said that Obama was Carter with a tan... however, he's become more like GWB with a tan.
@Cycloptichorn,
Any evidence to support that girl's schoolyard blurt Cyclo?
@spendius,
Did you read what Krauthammer wrote spendi?
I am surprised you haven't accused him of wearing short pants and attending Eton.
@Cycloptichorn,
They seem to always leave out the DETAILS of what they mean. LOL
@parados,
Quote:Did you read what Krauthammer wrote spendi?
I don't know. The name doesn't tinkle. It translates as malleus Germanicus doesn't it.
Link it and I will and get back to you.
@spendius,
You didn't read it but you called "incorrect" a school girls blurt?
Perhaps "incorrect" was an overly detailed analysis of what was written. But you wouldn't know that not having read what was being critiqued.
@parados,
I would say that that answer to another poster was a schoolgirl blurt under any circumstances. It's the literary equivalent of pulling your tongue and going myurrh!
Where's the link?
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I would say that that answer to another poster was a schoolgirl blurt under any circumstances. It's the literary equivalent of pulling your tongue and going myurrh!
Where's the link?
The link is in my original post.
Nimh wrote:
Georgeob1 is a conservative ideologue whom I disagree with on most things political, but with whom I also occasionally find common ground, and whose experience I do appreciate. Okie and you are posters with whom I strongly disagree with on pretty much everything - and whose reliance on what, in my perception, are shallow talking points can be maddening. But fine: you're you, I'm me, and we simply disagree. Italgato/Genoves/etc, on the other hand, is either a troll or simply - well - hmm. Insane. He's A2K's rightwing version of Roxxanne/Nikki/Twin Peaks/etc on the left. When I see Okie apparently not being able to make the distinction between just another strident conservative and someone who's simply quite mad, that seems a fairly troubling reflection of the state the conservative movement is in. You've got to be able to recognize and delimit yourself from the outright crazies - and since you mention the tea parties, I think that's where those failed too.
Nimh-I am ashamed of you. Haven't you been reading the outpourings of the senile Setanta? The little man with the doggie tells us that posters who do "Argumentum ad Hominem" are idiots. Do you fit the bill?
I have some advice for you. Since you have deigned to insult, have you the courage to debate?
You probably don't since I have detected your shortcoming. You have very little Testosterone, making you a limp wristed expatriate.
However, if you are not a coward, you can challenge me easily since your judgment is that I am insane.
If so, you should be able to utterly destroy any ideas I put forth.
But you won't. You are too effete to take a challenge. But I challenge you.
Here is the definition of insanity--
Main Entry: in·san·i·ty
Pronunciation: \in-ˈsa-nə-t"\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural in·san·i·ties
Date: 1590
1: a deranged state of the mind usually occurring as a specific disorder (as schizophrenia)
2: such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility
3 a: extreme folly or unreasonableness b: something utterly foolish or unreasonable
***********************************************************
What you must prove is whether laissez faire capitalism is insane.
I can show that Communism and Socialism are insanity.
But you will not do so since like so many on the left, you are a blowhard.
It's too bad that you were not in the Soviet Union when your hero, Stalin, was in power. He would have sent you to the Gulag!
@McGentrix,
I had read the link. I've read it again.
Declaring it "incorrect" is a schoolgirl blurt. It's bad manners too. And meaningless except insofar as it discovers an attitude.
@spendius,
Since you obviously hadn't read it when you blurted out your "silly school girl" analogy, I don't see what defense you have spendius.
For you to now claim you read it and understood it when you didn't know the name of the author earlier seems a little disingenuous on your part.
Is anybody tracking campaign promises kept and those broken? I honestly haven't been but am guessing the score would be about 50 - 50 four months into this administration.
Quote:Obama ducks promise to delay bill signings
Complete bills not on Web for pledged 5 days
By Stephen Dinan (Contact) | Tuesday, May 26, 2009
It seemed among the easiest of his transparency pledges and is entirely under his control, but President Obama is finagling his promise to post bills on the White House Web site for comment for five days before he signs them.
Mr. Obama last week signed four bills, each just a day or two after Congress passed and sent it over to him.
The White House said it posted links from its Web site to Congress' legislative Web site about a week before Mr. Obama signed the measures, but transparency advocates say that doesn't match the president's pledge to give Americans time to comment on the final version he is about to sign.
"He didn't say, 'When there's a bill heading to my desk,' or 'When we're pretty sure a bill will soon be passed.' He said when a bill ends up on his desk - a strong implication that public review would follow the bill arriving at his desk," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute.
During the campaign and again during the transition, Mr. Obama said opening bills up for public comment was a way of fighting back against special interests' control of the process.
"When there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing," Mr. Obama said in a major campaign speech laying out his goals for transparency.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/26/obama-vow-to-delay-signing-is-subject-to-interpret/
@Foxfyre,
I find it funny that the CATO institute is here referred to as 'transparency advocates.'
Cycloptichorn
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
I had read the link. I've read it again.
Declaring it "incorrect" is a schoolgirl blurt. It's bad manners too. And meaningless except insofar as it discovers an attitude.
Well, consider the source.
